... both 'native' Apple codecs that need no time consuming pre-rendering in FCP.

I will show the edited HD video at full res directly from harddisk to a 1920x1080 TV screen, and also burn STD DVD disks (maybe later BluRay). I'll also no doubt render some 640x360 H.264 for posting online etc

The first advice I would give you is to try to edit the native files and convert only when you need to change speed
In underwater video most of your clips as 10-20 seconds the issue of rendering performance is not as big as when you shoot hours
If that fails and you must convert take into account prores disk space needs and hardware needs as files are around 140 Mb/s and eat a lot of disk space also there is no point using prores 4:2:2 as the camera has only 4:2:0
If you decide to convert and have no space issues then I would go with the highest spec prores simply because every conversion deteriorates the footage so you really want to try and avoid that

Thanks for that Interceptor. Unfortunately I cannot edit native AVCHD (except to trim - in Sony's proprietary s/w in Windows) so I must choose between the two above. I will check on the disk space for the same clip AIC vs ProRes, good point. Also I was unaware that 422 was redundant with the RX100; another good point thanks!

Interests:filming/editing/exotic travel. l write reviews of editing software, books, tutorials and Mac based NLE related products for the www.kenstone.net and www.lafcpug.org sites as well as articles for Asian Diver Magazine and wetpixel. I am one of the founding members of the San Diego UnderSea Film Festival

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:37 PM

Nick,
You don't say which version of FCP you are using and that might be helpful. FCP has difficulty working in native AVCHD and HDV and thus transcoding to another codec is advisable. That said, while the Apple Intermediate Codec had its day, especially with iMovie, Pro Res is the best choice. However, since your original media is what it is, there would be no reason or advantage for you to transcode to Pro Res 422HQ. Just transcode to Pro Res 422 and that is all you need. If you have already imported the footage in its native format, if in FCP Studio, you can batch export all the clips at one time to Pro Res. If you are using FCPX, just check the 'Optimize' box in your preferences and it will do the work for you.
Steve

Edited by Steve Douglas, 22 January 2013 - 02:39 PM.

www.kenstone.net
www.lafcpug.org

Steve Douglas
steve-sharksdelight@cox.net

I have worked as an unpaid reviewer for the editing websites since 2002. Most all hardware and software is sent to me free of charge, however, in no way am I obligated to provide either positive or negative evaluations. Any suggestions I make regarding products are a result of my own, completely, personal opinions and experiences with said products.

I'm still using my set up of several years ago - when I was more active on these forums - it is FCP 6.0.6 and Mac OS 10.5.8. I'll stick with this non-Intel Quad (top of the range in its time) until it blows up and I can justify investing in something more up to date. It's working just fine atm. Of course I can't import AVCHD directly!

I'm using ClipWrap to convert my RX100's AVCHD (shooting at 50p 29m (PS) for max quality) to something that this older version of FCP can handle natively. I'm very impressed with ClipWrap (thanks focker) and have converted AVCHD (in 50p 50i 29m 17m etc) test clips into AIC, ProRes 422 and ProRes 422 HQ. I also have the option of DVCProHD and XDCAM EX and HD (as well as DV and HDV) which I have not tried.

The ProRes 422 HQ looks great and handles well. But the files are huge compared to AIC (and HQ is bigger than plain ProRes 422 o/c). The AIC also looks fine, but I haven't got round to doing any serious editing yet.

The guys at LAFCPUG.org (my favourite FCP geek site) are all saying AIC is old, go ProRes422 HQ as you definitely won't lose quality even though you won't be able to take advantage of all the other abilities of 422 HQ..

Thing is, will I lose anything using the older, simpler, smaller, tried and tested AIC for what I intend to do? - which is basically show the edited footage from hard-disk to its best ability on a 1920x1080p TV screen, burn DVDs (I'm not BluRay capable at the moment, but will in the future no doubt), and code some 640x360 stuff for the web.

So, go max with ProRes422HQ and cope with the enormous file sizes and inevitable slowness with an older Quad? Go AIC and maybe lose some quality? Split the difference and go ProRes422? Or try one of the other formats like DVCProHD?

Nick, it really depends on what your end product will be used. ProResLT is fine for web applications, even @ 1080. If you are doing lots of EFX or layers and jumping between programs, then ProResHQ would be best. Don't bother with DVCProHD or XDCAM422.

Drew
Moderator
"Journalism is what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations."

"I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there.

So the versions of s/w I am using don't allow me to use ProRes LT Drew. Would ProRes422 be just as good as ProRes422HQ for my purposes? Ie. better than AIC? You are basically agreeing w LAFCPUG in saying 'can't go wrong w PreRes422HQ' although I can see that disk space and CPU power may become a frustration. I do expect to be doing acertain amount of EFX thought that is not a critical issue ...

Well do the litmus test. I'm willing to put money down that 80% of people can't tell the difference between the 2 Pro Res codecs without 400% viewing. Hell I'd say 70% for Pro Res vs AIC, or at least they won't care about the differences. Go with Pro Res. I'll see if I can find my old FCS 3 and send it to you.

Drew
Moderator
"Journalism is what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations."

"I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there.